Faith Freedom International

abdullahnoor · Joined: 18 Jan 2003 Posts: 990

There are many points mentioned in this site that can be rebutted. However, to do it in one day is suicidal. Hence I shall take it topic by topic. The first topic I would like to discuss is the claim of the non-existence of God, whom Muslims call Allah. In other words, I would like to specifically discuss the concept of atheism, as opposed to the concept of the existence of Allah, as taught to Muslims.

Atheism can be defined as the belief that God does not exist. This is different from “free-thinking”, where the free thinker does not have any particular set of beliefs.

As such, atheists too need to define “God”. Only then, do we understand what they reject. For example, if I say I reject Theory C, I must define and make clear what “Theory C” is, for people to understand what I reject. Hence, it is clear that atheists need to define what they mean by “God”, for Muslims to understand exactly what they reject.

But before I ask atheists to define “God”, it is only fair that I explain what “God” is from the Islamic perspective. Sura 112 is a good sura to cite. It says that God is the one and only; it says that everything is dependant on him and he depends on no one; he does not beget any children, neither was he begotten; and that absolutely nothing is like him.

I would like to stress the Arabic word “samad” in 112:2. This is the point that says that everything is dependant upon Allah, while Allah is not dependant on anything. For example, what appears on my computer screen depends on what I key on my keyboard. But what appears on my screen does not affect my life.

The above is the God Muslims believe in. So can atheists now define what kind of God they don’t believe in? After they have defined “God”, we can further our discussion as follows.

Now this topic may have been discussed before. It is about the origin of the universe and things around us. I am starting on the premise that it is not only Muslims who should try to convince non-believers that our existence is due to Allah. I am also starting on the premise that non-believers, in particular atheists, should give an alternative possibility to what caused our existence.

The Quran challenges non-believers to look around them. There are many signs to ponder upon. Let us just look at one.

What is life?

Can life be existent without a cause? But it is not just life only that is intriguing. It is that life forms are able to reproduce more of its kind. What about consciousness? It is one thing to be alive. It is another to know that you are alive.

What about intelligence? Intelligence can be defined as the ability to learn from the past and apply what has been learnt. Can intelligence be existent without a cause?

What about emotions? Joy, sorrow, love, anger, jealousy? Can non-living things experience such emotions?

What I am trying to say is that life is very complicated. Can such a complicated thing exist simply by a stroke of chance of nature? Or is there a driving force behind all this?

If you say Muslims must prove there is God, then I say non-Muslims, particularly atheists, must think how all this wonderful harmony of life can exist without a driving force.

Any comments from non-Muslims, in particular atheists?

rand · Joined: 28 Jul 2002 Posts: 1752

Dear abdullahnoor,

veractiy_forever · Joined: 26 Oct 2002 Posts: 420

Any comments from non-Muslims, in particular atheists?

I think you dont mind comments from an apostate. or do you?

doubtless · Joined: 11 Aug 2002 Posts: 1497

Does every question have to have an answer? The question of "God" is one of those. The moment you define "God" that you are trying to prove you have limited God, and that finite God then can be shown to not exist. I thought that was one of the arguments that Imam Al-Gahzalli used back in the 12th century to limit the use of rationality to talk about God. So hopefully we do not go over the arguments that have been gone over by the muslim scholars themselves.

SherKhan · Joined: 09 Mar 2002 Posts: 356

scepsis · Joined: 10 Nov 2002 Posts: 647

First of all, every believer in god has a different definition or idea of god. It would take a great deal of time to elucidate the differences between various believers, and there's little point in doing so. You have given us your (not very precise) definition of god (what other qualities does god have: what powers and abilities, beyond uniqueness, independence and being neither begotten nor begetting? A possible psychological explanation for god's behaviour is not that it does not beget, but that it cannot beget, with consequent traumas); you can simply assume that I agree with you about the falsehood of every other definition or idea of god, but go one step further and reject your definition as well.
Let us take the example of qrdg. Qrdg is identical to your definition of god, except that qrdg did not create the universe and is completely uninterested in it, having better things to do with its (infinite) time. Can you persuade a believer in qrdg that qrdg does not exist, but god does? Incidentally, if there is "absolutely nothing like him [god]" and god doesn't beget children, you can hardly use the term "him", which presupposes a female equivalent and the ability to beget offspring.
You require "an alternative possibility [as] to what caused our existence." (It is possible, of course, that the universe's existence and our existence may have been caused by separate "possibilities".) There are a great many different possibilities, beginning with all the hypothetical gods we don't believe in. I would say we don't know the answer, but to produce a hypothesis like god merely moves it further along (what caused god's existence?), and, as I will show, raises further complications. Furthermore, you confuse two separate things: the cause of our existence and of the universe's existence, and the complexity of life. Again, I do not claim to know how life came about, but I have found the arguments of evolutionary biologists convincing (there are several excellent sites on the internet giving summaries of their theories) as an explanation for the "wonderful harmony of life", with evolution as the driving force.
Finally we come to the case for the prosecution against god.
First of all, if god is "not dependent on anything", what did god create the universe for? Curiosity? Amusement? Cosmic thumb-twiddling? As the universal equivalent of a toy train-set?
When did god create the universe? Did it merely set it going and watch, or did it intervene at various stages, or did it go away and do something else? A very old joke: God is alive and well and working on something much less ambitious.
Other qualities are often attributed to god by muslims; the fact you do not mention them leads me to suppose that you do not think that god is immortal, omniscient and benevolent. Do you believe that god created a heaven and a hell which awaits us?Does god want human beings to worship it? If so, why? I cannot discuss these topics until you have supplied more information: I do not intend to spend my time criticising beliefs you do not hold when I can criticise those you do.

Ampbreia · Joined: 10 Oct 2002 Posts: 476 Location: U.S.A.

You said,

abdullahnoor · Joined: 18 Jan 2003 Posts: 990

Thank you for your replies.

Rand, before we continue, I really need to understand what is your concept or belief of this thing called “god” that you reject. For all you know, the “god” that you reject may well be the “god” that I reject too.

I need to understand what is it you reject. So can you tell me what is this god thing like, that is unacceptable to you?

VF, I am not asking you to believe in Islam. First things first. What is your understanding about “god” that you find it unacceptable?

Doubtless. Likewise, I am not asking you to confine God within finite terms. All I am asking is what do you think “god” is like?

Sherkan. Laughing

I think you have proven my point better than I could have done it myself. In my other post I talked about verbal harrassment. Can you tell me what is it in your post, that adds constructively to the discussion so far?

Scepsis, I believe you are more of a free thinker than an atheist, right? If that is so, then my question ‘Can you define the “god” that you do not believe in?’ does not apply to you. I noted your arguments and I must say they are quite interesting.

Ampbreia, I feel that you are the only one so far in this thread, who has given me an idea what you think “god” is like. You have indicated that your concept of “god” is Yahweh/Allah as what you understand, from reading from the Quran. Like Scepsis, I take that you are a free-thinker, rather than an atheist? So if this “god” that exists in your mind, which you do not accept, is really something else – a compassionate and merciful god – would that be a more acceptable concept of god?

So far, in this thread, I see that scepsis and ampbreia are the only ones that have given enough points to further a discussion. But unfortunately, I am not ready to discuss the various concepts of creation or existence as yet. Not until the atheists tell me what is the god that they reject.

So can we get back to the main stuff here? Anyone else want to try to tell us what is it they are rejecting? All I know is that you reject the existence of God. But I do not know what you mean by “God”.

This is the same as me telling you I reject “Theory C”. Do you know exactly what I have rejected?

Scepsis and ampbreia, please hold on, I hope to have the chance to continue discussing the points you brought up in due course, God willing.

rand · Joined: 28 Jul 2002 Posts: 1752

abdullahnoor wrote:

scepsis · Joined: 10 Nov 2002 Posts: 647

Quote; I believe you are more of a free thinker than an atheist, right? If that is so, then my question ‘Can you define the “god” that you do not believe in?’ does not apply to you. I noted your arguments and I must say they are quite interesting.

I am an agnostic, or "free-thinker" on the matter of proof or disproof: however, on moral grounds, I am an atheist.
As I said, if an atheist needs to define the god they don't believe in, you need to define all the gods you don't believe in. We can all set to work defining and agreeing we do not believe in the gods of ancient Greece, Rome, India, the Odinic gods, the gods of the Epicureans and the Stoics... It isn't necessary. For general purposes the concept "god" has enough in common for all users of the term (or it wouldn't be a concept) to need only to give minor qualifications to what the term for other people to understand them.

mas528 · Joined: 28 Mar 2002 Posts: 91

ABdullanoor,

I do not reject ANYTHING.

There is simply no evidence of any god. period.

If there is at least some evidence of a god, then I will tentativley accept.

However, I will not accept someone just telling me that there is a god.

Islam, for example is on tenuous grounds.

Abraham never existed.
Jews were never in Egypt
Greece and Rome, the 'pagans' of both the bible and the koran were paragons of virtue compared to the untenable filth that is found in those books
_________________
I used to talk about "False Gods" and "Primitive Religion".

Then I realized that they are both redundant phrases.

Ampbreia · Joined: 10 Oct 2002 Posts: 476 Location: U.S.A.

I guess Mas528 is the most authentic atheist here and certainly gives the most purely atheistic answer I for one have ever heard. You should have seen this one coming Abdullanoor: a true atheist has absolutely no need to define God. He doesn't simply reject him, you see, he can't even imagine God. Didn't offer any good explanation for what he believes instead, but have you ever considered that some people are content enough to live for the moment that they give no serious thought to the concept of eternity or God?

I think Mas528 is one of these, particularly since he even goes so far as to reject the historical evidence that Abraham existed and that the Jews were ever in Egypt. (Please jump right in Mas528 if I am reading you wrongly!) That's an unneccessary bit of overkill. In fact, I would call it either a complete ignorance of archaelogy and history (forgivable, since not everyone finds the reading up on this quite as entertaining as I do) or it is flat denial of history just because it has possible religious conotations.

The Koran is not laid out in any kind of a chronological / historical manner even though the Jews in Egypt and the life and times of Abraham are certainly described in it, so the best history main source for Muslims is probably the haddith. However the Bible is laid out historically and is a perfectly good history source in its own right for the most part (excepting Genisis, which is a little skewed overall since it was most probably written in the time of King David rather than anywhere near the time of the events described in it). Archaelogical finds as well as the cross-referencing of many ancient documents (including personal letters of common folk and the declaration of kings engraved in stones and on buried scrolls) in recent years have proven the truth of many of those ancient tales. In Iraq are the ruins of the tower of Babble. On a peak in the Himalayas is/was the remainder of what appears to have been the ark, built of now-petrified wood from a now-extinct tree. Across Siberia are mounds of Paleolithic era beasts, left there by a tremendous ancient flood. Several ancient cultures have legends of the flood, but each one has its own Noah. The record of Jewish slaves in Egypt as well as the 7 plagues, and even tales of Atlantis, were faithfully recorded by Egyptian scribes. Etcetera, etcetera.

But atheists are not the only ones who deny history. I've seen many a Muslim do it too for similar reasons. Some, for instance, deny any validity to the haddiths just because, by modern standards of humanity, the haddith give VERY unflattering, un-saintly, accounts of the Prophet Mohammad's life.

Denying history has no real value to anyone because those who fail to learn from it are doomed to repeat it and, also, risk losing sight of what has made them who they are. There are useful messages to be found in every ounce of true history and in dreams and in fairytales and legends too. Here, I will give you my poem on the topic:

It doesn’t matter if the world is flat or round, or rides on the back of a giant tortoise, or is tossed from one horn to the other of a giant stellar bull…

The world is ever renewing.

It doesn’t matter if Moses changed his walking stick into a writhing serpent, or brought the plagues on Egypt to free his people from tyranny, or parted the Dead Sea…

Miracles happen every day.

It doesn’t matter if Jesus was the sun of God, made wine out of water, healed the sick, raised the dead, or rose from the dead.

Hope blooms ever eternal.

It doesn’t matter if the angel Gabriel came down and gave the Koran to Mohammed, or that Mohammed rode to Heaven and back…

We can rise above ourselves.

It doesn’t matter if the Phoenix soars across the world in all its sun-bright glory just to build a nest of spice twigs and burn itself alive…

Beauty and new creation can be born out of ashes.

All that matters, all that is true, is the meaning of the message: the darkest side of night is just before dawn, spring always follows winter, and love is the best thing we can share.

All that is good shows itself in creativeness, wisdom, harmony, and good will. All that is evil shows itself in destruction, bigotry, disharmony, and hatred…

Make of our lives a blessing
By the way, Abdullanoor, you asked if I would find Allah more acceptable if It were Compassionate and Merciful? Well, it would certainly make Allah more lovable at least. But, you see, I am an Ex-Muslim and the more I studied Islam as a Muslim, the less Compassionate and Merciful I found Allah to be. Moreover, I do not consider worship of God to be of any special value to It or to anyone else. If you are grateful to the Source of Creation, the best way to show it is via creative and loving acts. What goes around, comes around, and we are all part of the same universe. Better not to be a carcinogen in it, right? Cool

abdullahnoor · Joined: 18 Jan 2003 Posts: 990

Mas528

scepsis · Joined: 10 Nov 2002 Posts: 647

“I do not reject anything. There is simply no evidence of such thing as Theory C. Period”

There is no evidence of Theory C. What is Theory C? What happened to theories A and B? The concept "god" raises immediate assumptions among everyone who uses it, and most of those assumptions are common to every user of the term. Theory C, however, may be anything you or I choose.

When I say I am an atheist on moral grounds, I mean that the post-Abrahamic concept of god as omnipotent and omniscient is an evil idea and has a disastrous effect on the thoughts and behaviour of those who accept it.

nina · Joined: 02 Sep 2002 Posts: 331

Hi Abdullanoor, I don't really have time right now, although I like this discussion. Wink

I can't resist to give some short replies to what you state, I hope I'll have more time in the weekend.

abdullahnoor · Joined: 18 Jan 2003 Posts: 990

Scepsis

doubtless · Joined: 11 Aug 2002 Posts: 1497

Abdullahnoor,

I am not an atheist.
I just do not know enough to tell you what is underlying this creation. I do not know really where, why, how, etc. this creation came from. I have listened to and tried to study the latest theories on cosmology and they are just that theories. We do not know what is intelligence in humans and we do not know how to measure intelligence in animals. We have clues that the higher apes are quite similar to us and show behaviour, cultural and psychological, similar to humans. We do not know how this intelligence gets put togather in the brain. We do not even know how to think of disembodied intelligence and we certainly do not know how to test for a universal disembodied intelligence. So I do not know what to tell you what I do not know to start defining whether there is a God or not.
However,
This is a question that was entertained by Al-Ghazali as it came through the old Greek philosphers.
Can God create something he cannot lift? If he cannot then he cannot create everything. If he can then he is not all that poweful since there is something he cannot lift. There are many paradoxes like that.

Now if you ask what kind of God muslims believe in, then I can cite you the qualities and actions of Allah from the Koran. Do I believe in that kind of God? No.
So I do not know if I have answered your question. I have tried.

scepsis · Joined: 10 Nov 2002 Posts: 647

quote>See the difficulty if I do not defined Theory C? You don’t even know what I reject! Now can you understand how Muslims are going to know exactly what is the god you reject? In most cases, the god that atheists reject, is also the same god the Muslims reject!

You speak of the "god the muslims reject": presumably, then, you accept every god except this one unspecified god. What are the attributes which make you reject it, while accepting Baal, Moloch etc.? I do not "reject" god: I regard the hypotheses, "god" and "gods", as unnecessary, and think that people who accept these hypotheses behave in a way which is dangerous to everyone else.

Until you have defined "define" and "reject" and "understand" I cannot know what you are talking about. I will then have to define "know" and "about", in case you cannot understand...
That is your method of argument.

Language works as a form of communication because when people use the same word they usually know what the other person means by that word in that context. Your definition "Theory C" is inadequate, because of its lack of context: do you mean Evans's Theory C, or Grumbacher's? Have you considered Powys's amendments to both? If not, why not?
If this were a site dedicated to the discussion of their various theories, we would know what you meant. On the other hand, if you rejected theory, then we would know what you were talking about. Unfortunately, you appear to reject meaning. A.E.Housman once said that he could not define poetry, but he could recognise it as a terrier recognised a rat. Equally, I can recognise evasiveness and word-play. If you have something to say, say it. As it is, I suspect that you have nothing to say and dare not recognise the fact.

rand · Joined: 28 Jul 2002 Posts: 1752

Dear abdullahnoor,

Abdullahnoor wrote:

bob · Joined: 05 Jan 2003 Posts: 370 Location: Paris, France

Yes of coure, an atheist does not need to define God. A scientifically-inclined atheist would study the attributes ascribed to God by those who believe in him and find explanations for these beliefs in sociology, psychoanalysis etc.

The God of the OT and Quran is an obvious fictional construct reflecting the psychology and mythological beliefs of those who claim to be speaking in his name. The anthropomorphism of God/Allah is also very evident - whether it be a question of God/Allah's human emotions of anger, pleasure etc or his physical attributes. Remember that in the Quran Allah moulds the first man, Adam, out of clay 'with my two hands'. How many fingers does Allah have? Ten?

Regarding morality, if God/Allah really exists then I believe it is our moral duty to resist Him. Imagine, God created men out of his free will and with the full knowledge that some of them were going to suffer eternal torment in hell! Why bother to create them in the first place? And why create Satan? And Muslims and others feel it is their DUTY on earth to submit to the will of this beserk sadist!
_________________
"Two things fill the heart with ever renewed awe the more we meditate upon them: the starry firmament above and the moral law within." Immanuel Kant

abdullahnoor · Joined: 18 Jan 2003 Posts: 990

Well, looks like I cannot wait for the atheists. I have invited them here, in another thread. But looks like they are more interested in sliming Islam, rather than discussing the concepts of Islam.

Before I address some of the issues brought up about the teachings of Islam on creation, let me comment on the unwillingness of atheists to engage this topic. As expected, they would stay away, because they are confused with what they believe. You see, by definition, atheism means the rejection of God. However, the existence of life and universe, unlike fairy tales, exist before their very eyes! This puts true blue atheists in a bind.

On one hand, they reject God. On another hand, they acknowledge the existence of an orderly universe. Next question of course would be, “What caused the universe to be?” So the only answer they can come out with is, “It happened through pure blind chance.”

But in doing that, they have presented a unique problem for themselves. All along they prefer to be rejecting theories, hence putting the onus on believers to proof the existence of god. But if we were to look at the fact that they believe the creation of universe is due to blind chance, that would put pressure on atheists to support that belief!

So in order to escape the responsibility of showing that their belief (blind chance) is the driver of the universe, they simply say they ‘reject’ the existence of all concepts of god!

A simplistic, but extremely cowardly stance, ever so commonly deployed by atheists.

Now let us move to some of the issues raised in this thread so far. Because of time constraint, I will move into the most important ones, affecting the concept of God in Islam.

I will proceed discussing in more detailed, in my next immediate post.

abdullahnoor · Joined: 18 Jan 2003 Posts: 990

Rand: